http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5469 of 2005

PETITIONER: Hinsa Virodhak Sangh

RESPONDENT: Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2008

BENCH: H. K. Sema & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(With Civil Appeal Nos. 5470/2005, 5472/2005, 5474/2005, 5476- 5478/2005 & 5479-5481/2005]

Markandey Katju, J.

Civil Appeal No. 5469/2005

1.      This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned  judgment dated 22.6.2005 of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court   in Special Civil Application No. 6329 of 1998.

2.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.      Respondent No. 1 claims to be a registered public charitable trust  working for safeguarding the interests of the persons engaged in the business  of slaughter and  sale of livestock, mutton etc.  It is alleged that it is  functioning in the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat since 1962 and has about  3000 members.  Respondent No. 2 All Ahmedabad (Chhoti Jamat) Mutton  Merchant Association is an association of persons who are engaged in the  sale of mutton in the city of Ahmedabad.  Respondent No.3 is an individual  who is doing the business of selling mutton in the city of Ahmedabad.          4.      The common grievance of the respondents herein (the writ petitioners  before the High Court), is that with a view to appease the Jain community  the State Government and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (in short  \021the Corporation\022) have, from time to time, taken decisions/passed  resolutions for closure of the municipal slaughter houses in Ahmedabad  during the period of the Paryushan festival (which is an important Jain  festival) resulting in serious violation of their fundamental right to trade and  do business in meat etc.  They have alleged that in the year 1993, the State  Government accepted the demand of some organizations belonging to the  Jain community for closure of the municipal slaughter houses during the  period of Paryushan and issued directions to the Corporation to take  appropriate action accordingly.  In subsequent years, the Corporation passed  resolutions for closure of the municipal slaughter houses for different period  ranging from 8 to 18 days during the Paryushan festival.   

5.      They have alleged that the closure of the municipal slaughter houses  directly results in violation of their fundamental rights to do trade and  business as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and it cannot  be said to be a reasonable restriction merely because a particular community  or a section of the society feels that for a particular period there should be  closure of the municipal slaughter houses as that will be in consonance with  the Jain ideology of Ahinsa (non-violence).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

6.      There were two resolutions impugned in the writ petition passed by  the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation for closure of the  municipal slaughter houses in Ahmedabad during the Paryushan festival.   These resolutions read as follows:

               \023Resolution dated 14.8.1998:

Resolved that during the current year from 19.8.1998,  Mhah Paryushan Parv of Jain Religion begins.  Every  year during Paryushan Parv, the slaughter houses of this  Municipality are closes.  Accordingly, having regard to  the sentiments of the citizens of Jain Religion, during the  current year also, on account of Paryushan Parv from  19.8.1998 to 26.8.1998, and as per the discussion in the  Committee, sanction should be obtained from the  Municipal Corporation, to close Municipal slaughter  houses every year, for eight days, during Paryushan Parv.

               Resolution dated 29.8.1999:

Resolved that as demanded by Shree Arihant Seva Samaj  and All Gujarat Digambar Jain Samaj, Ahmedabad, in  anticipation of the sanction of the Municipal Corporation,  sanction is granted to close the Municipal slaughter  house for the period 27.8.1998 to 5.9.1998 of Digambar  Jain Society Paryushan Parv from 27.8.1998 to 5.9.1998;  and as per the discussion in the Committee, hereafter  every year, to close the municipal slaughter houses, for  ten days of Digambar Jain Samaj Paryushan Parv.\024     

7.      Thus it appears that the closure of slaughter houses in Ahmedabad  was ordered by the Corporation for a period of 18 days, first from 19.8.1998  to 26.8.1998 in connection with the festival of the Shvetamber sect of the  Jain community and the other from 27.8.1998 to 5.9.1998 during which the  Digambar sect of the Jain community celebrates Paryushan festival.   However, during the course of the arguments, learned senior counsels for the  appellants Mr. Soli Sorabjee and Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina stated that the  closure is only for 9 days and not for 18 days which is evident from  paragraphs 20 & 23 of the affidavit filed on behalf of Ahmedabad Municipal  Corporation in the connected Civil Appeals (C.A. Nos. 5479-81/2005). 8.      The impugned resolutions dated 14.8.1998 and 29.8.1999 were passed  under Section 466(1)(D)(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal  Corporation Act, 1949.  The said provision reads as follows:

\023The Commissioner may make standing orders consistent  with the provisions of this Act and the rules and by-laws  in respect of the following matters, namely:-      (A)\005\005\005.                          (B)\005\005\005.      (C)\005\005\005.                         (D)\005\005\005.

(b)  fixing the days and the hours on and during  which any market, slaughter-house or stock-yard  may be held or kept open for use and prohibiting  the owner of any private market from keeping it  closed without lawful excuse on such days or  during such hours\024.

        9.      It may be mentioned that the slaughter houses in Ahmedabad are  owned and managed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, but the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

animals which are slaughtered there belong to private persons represented by  the respondents herein, who bring their animals to the slaughter house for  slaughtering.

10.     The stand taken by the Municipal Corporation is reflected in the  affidavit of Dr. Anil, Asstt. Superintendent (Slaughter Houses) filed in  Special Civil Application No. 9031 of 2000. In paragraph 6 and 7 of his  affidavit, Dr. Anil has stated as under:  

\023 6. In reply to para 5 of the petition I state and submit  that it is no doubt true that the religions sentiments of the  Jain community are taken into consideration when  imposing this ban.  I submit that it is not a question of  Jain community imposing its will upon rest of the people,  but it is a question of one section of society who believes  in kindness to animals making a request that during their  religious days their sentiments may be respected for these  few days, if not for all times. It is considering this  religious sentiment that for a few days ban is imposed.

7. In  reply to para 7 of the petition, I state that the  petitioner is right in saying that the question which arises  before this Hon\022ble Court is one of principle and not of  any specific event which happened during a particular  year.  I further state and submit that the Corporation has  stated earlier what are the reasons which have led it to  impose a ban for a few days during the Jain religious  days.  In reply to the principles raised as under:-

(i)     I respectfully state and submit that looking  to the long term interest of the city and  harmony with which the citizens are  expected to live, the Corporation is well  within its right for closing down the  slaughter houses for a limited period of time.

(ii)    I state and submit that such a closure is  certainly undisputable in public interest and  the restriction which it places temporarily  for a few days on the slaughter of animals is  in no way contrary to the Constitution.

(iii)   I state and submit that the action of the  Corporation is well within its power and not  malafide and not contrary to law and not  violative of Article 19 of the Constitution.       (iv)    I state that the Corporation\022s action as stated  above is taken not to discriminate between  the communities but to see that if  communities respect each others\022 feeling  and that more tolerant society where people  of different religions can live together  happily is brought about.  Such a desire of  the Corporation can by no means be  violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of  India.  It is important to appreciate that the  Corporation is not deciding between the  Jains and other communities.  What the  Corporation is attempting to do is to see that  the religious beliefs of all communities and  classes of society are respected placing as  little restriction or curb on the other  community so that all can live harmoniously  and peacefully.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

(v)     I state that there is no fundamental right to  slaughter animals.  I state and submit that  the impugned action as stated above is  absolutely in public interest and as already  stated above, it is not to satisfy religious  sentiments of a particular section but to see  that the community as a whole lives  cordially respecting each other\022s religious  belief.  

(vi)    I respectfully state and submit that Section  466(1)(d)(b) is legal and just and I leave it to  my lawyer to raise relevant argument on this  legal issue.          (vii)   I state and submit that the action of the  corporation is legal and valid.  It is an  absolutely bonafide exercise of power.  It is  not for a collateral purpose viz. to appease  Jains.  I am not going into length on the  same issue as the same has been referred to  in former paragraphs of the affidavit.  I state  and submit that the power has been  exercised to see that the citizens of  Ahmedabad can all live cordially together  respecting religious sentiments of each  other\024.        11.     The State Government filed its reply in Special Civil Application No.  9509 of 1993.  In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by Shri M.V. Khalasi,  Under Secretary to the Government, Urban Development and urban Housing  Department, reference has been made to the incident involving murder of  Smt. Gitaben Shah (Activist of Hinsa Nivaran Samiti) and it has been  averred that keeping in view the representations made by the Jain  organizations and personal requests made by eminent citizens it was decided  to close the slaughter houses during the Paryushan days.  Shri Khalasi has  referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Jan Mohammed\022s case and  averred that the petitioners cannot complain of the violation of their  fundamental rights of trade and business simply because the Municipal  slaughter houses are closed during the period of the Paryushan.       12.     During the pendency of the petitions, Hinsa Virodhak Sangh, Satellite  Murtipujak Jain Sangh, Shree Laxmi Vardak Jain Sangh and Shree  Shahibaug Girdhar Nagar Jain Swetambar Murti Pujak Sangh got  themselves impleaded as parties to the writ petitions or were allowed to be  impleaded as party respondents.  Thereafter, Dr. K.K. Shah, President of  Hinsa Virodhak Sangh filed affidavit dated 17.8.1998 in Special Civil  Application No. 6239 of 1998.  He has referred to the Farman issued by  Mughal Emperor Akbar in the 16th century, notifying 12 days of the month  of Badharva including 8 days of the Paryushan as the period of abstinence  during which no living creature would be slaughtered, and averred that the  petitioners\022 right to trade and business in livestock, meat etc. is not violated  on account of closure of the slaughter houses during the period of the  Paryushan.  Shri Jayesh Manubhai Shah has also filed affidavit 17.8.1998 on  behalf of three Jain Sanghs.  In paragraph 4 of his affidavit, Shri Jayesh  Manubhai Shah has averred as under:- \023The Jain religion is a very old religion based mainly on  the principles of \023Ahinsa\024 of the highest order.   In the  days of Paryushan Parva all the Jains all over the world  will observe various religious activities such as fasting,  prayers, attending the lectures providing and observing  \023Ahinsa\024.  The Jains are believing in not killing or  hurting even a small insect, therefore, the killing or  cutting of the animals in the slaughter houses during

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

these days of Paryushan Parva affect and hurt the  religious feelings of all Jains.  The respondent Nos. 1 and  2 have been respecting the religious feeling of Jains since  last many years and during the closure of the slaughter  houses in Paryushan Parva days there are no complaints  regarding non-supply of meat or its products by  consumers, traders etc. thereof\024.

13.     It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants before the High  Court that the closure of the municipal slaughter houses during the period of  Paryushan should be declared as an unreasonable  restriction on the rights of  the writ petitioners to carry on trade and business in livestock, mutton etc.    It is alleged that the impugned resolutions were passed by the Corporation in  view of the demand made by some organizations belong to the Jain  community and it has nothing to do with the general public interest.  It was  further submitted that the fundamental rights of those engaged in the trade  and business of slaughtering animals and/or selling meat etc which is  guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot be put to peril  or jeopardized with a view to assuage the feelings of any particular  community or a particular section of society, or as a mark of religious  sentiments of a particular community.  It was submitted that a large number  of people living in Ahmedabad are non-vegetarians and their right to food of  their choice is an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21  of the Constitution which cannot be violated at the whims and fancies of the  Jain community.         14.     It was also submitted that the impugned resolutions of the Corporation  were totally arbitrary and discriminatory and hence violative of Article 14 of  the Constitution apart from violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.  

15.     In reply it was submitted before the High Court by learned counsels  for the Municipal Corporation and the State of Gujarat that the impugned  resolutions were valid and there is no violation of any constitutional  provision.  It was submitted that non-vegetarians should respect the  sentiments of the Jain community and should not complaint against the  closure of the slaughter houses simply because it may adversely affect their  business for a few days.  A reference was made to the decision of this Court  in Haji Usmanbhai Qureshi  vs.  State of Gujarat AIR 1986 SC 1213 in  which a Constitution Bench of this Court upheld the ban on slaughter of  bulls and bullocks below the age of 16 years.  It was submitted that the right  to eat non-vegetarian food cannot be treated as a part of the right to life  under Article 21 of the Constitution and the closure of Municipal slaughter  houses for a few days cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article  19(1)(g) or Article 14 of the Constitution.       16.     Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Municipal  Corporation  vs.  Jan Mohammed AIR 1986 SC 1205 where closure of the  municipal corporation slaughter houses by the Corporation for 7 days i.e.  during Janmasthami, Mahatma Gandhi\022s Birthday, 30th January, Mahavir  Jayanti, Ram Navami, etc. was held to be valid.      

17.     By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court  held that the impugned resolutions of the Municipal Corporation were  constitutionally invalid.  The Division Bench of the High Court held that the  writ petitioners\022 right to freedom to carry on the trade of slaughtering and  selling meat cannot be curtailed or abridged merely at the asking of a  particular section of society, or organizations belonging to a particular  community merely because the members of that particular community feel  that according to their religion people should not eat non-vegetarian food  during a particular festival.  The Division Bench was of the view that  whether the people eat vegetarian food or non-vegetarian food is their  private affair and the Court cannot make any pronouncement about it.   People living in different parts of the country have different eating habits.   Even in a particular locality, village or town, there are some who are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

vegetarian and others who are non-vegetarian.  The Division Bench held that  no restriction can be placed on the slaughtering or eating of meat merely  because it may hurt the sentiments or the religious feelings of a particular  community or a society.  18.     The Division Bench of the High Court strongly relied on the decision  of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Mohd. Faruk  vs.  State of  Madhya Pradesh AIR 1970 SC 93.

19.     We have carefully considered the judgment of the Constitution Bench  in Md. Faruk\022s case (supra). In that judgment reference was made to the  decision of the earlier Constitution Bench in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi  vs.  State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731 in which it was held - (i) that a total ban  on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and of she-buffaloes,  male and female, was reasonable and valid; (ii) that a total ban on the  slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle as  well as buffaloes), so long as they were capable of being used as milch or  draught cattle, was also reasonable and valid; and (iii) that a total ban on the  slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they  ceased to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught  animals was not in the interest of the general public and was invalid.           20.     Reference was also made in Md. Faruk\022s case (supra) to Abdul  Hakim Quarishi  vs.  State of Bihar  AIR 1961 SC 448 where it was held   that the ban on the slaughter of bulls, bullocks and she-buffaloes below the  age of 20 or 25 years was not a reasonable restriction in the interest of the  general public and was void.  The Court observed that a bull, bullock or  buffalo did not remain useful after it was 15 years old, and whatever little  use it may then have was greatly offset by the economic disadvantages of  feeding and maintaining unserviceable cattle.  This Court also held that the  additional condition that the animal must, apart from being above 20 or 25  years of age, be unfit was a further unreasonable restriction.  On that ground  the relevant provisions in the Bihar, U.P. and Madhya Pradesh Acts were  declared invalid.

21.     In paragraph 11 of Md. Faruk\022s case (supra), this Court observed :

\023The sentiments of a section of the people may be hurt by  permitting slaughter of bulls and bullocks in premises  maintained by a local authority. But a prohibition  imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right to carry  on an occupation, trade or business will not be regarded  as reasonable, if it is imposed not in the interest of the  general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities  and sentiments of a section of the people whose way of  life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the  claimant\024      

22.     It was on the basis of the observations made in the aforesaid para 11  in Md. Faruk\022s case (supra) that the Division Bench of the High Court  struck down the impugned resolutions of the Ahmedabad Municipal  Corporation. 23.     Before we proceed further it may be mentioned that a Seven-Judge  Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat  vs.  Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. 2005(8) SCC 534 has  partially overruled the decision of the Five-Judge Constitution Bench in Md.  Hanif Qureshi\022s case (supra).  In the aforesaid decision the Seven-Judge  Constitution Bench has referred, inter alia, to the decision in the Five-Judge  Constitution Bench decision in Md. Faruk\022s case (supra) (in para 29).  In  paragraph 67 of the Seven-Judge bench judgment it has been observed: \023The State and every citizen of India must have  compassion for living creatures.  Compassion, according  to the Oxford Advanced Learner\022s Dictionary means \023a  strong feeling of sympathy for those who are suffering  and a desire to help them\024.  According to the Chambers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

20th Century Dictionary, compassion is fellow-feeling, or  sorrow for the sufferings of another; pity\022\024.  Compassion  is suggestive of sentiments, a soft feeling, emotions  arising out of sympathy, pity and kindness.  The concept  of compassion for living creatures enshrined in Article  51-A(g) is based on the background of the rich cultural  heritage of India the land of Mahatma Gandhi, Vinobha,  Mahaveer, Buddha, Nanak and others.  No religion or  holy book in any part of the world teaches or encourages  cruelty.  Indian society is a pluralistic society.  It has  unity in diversity.  The religious, cultures and people may  be diverse, yet all speak in one voice that cruelty to any  living creature must be curbed and ceased\024.                     24.     We have quoted paragraph 67 of the Seven-Judge Bench decision of  this Court because this observation will be deemed to have impliedly  overruled the observation in paragraph 11 of the judgment in Md. Faruk\022s  case (supra) that sentiments of a particular section of the people are  irrelevant in imposing a prohibition.       25.     We are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the High Court  cannot be sustained. In our opinion, the impugned resolutions of Ahmedabad  Municipal Corporation are valid, and there is no violation of Articles 14,  19(1)(g) or 21 of the Constitution.       26.     Had the impugned resolutions ordered closure of municipal slaughter  houses for a considerable period of time we may have held the impugned  resolutions to be invalid being an excessive restriction on the rights of the  butchers of Ahmedabad who practise their profession of meat selling.  After  all, butchers are practicing a trade and it is their fundamental right under  Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which is guaranteed to all citizens of  India.  Moreover, it is not a matter of the proprietor of the butchery shop  alone. There may be also several workmen therein who may become  unemployed if the slaughter houses are closed for a considerable period of  time, because one of the conditions of the licence given to the shop-owners  is to supply meat regularly in the city of Ahmedabad and this supply comes  from the municipal slaughter houses of Ahmedabad.  Also, a large number  of people are non-vegetarian and they cannot be compelled to become  vegetarian for a long period.  What one eats is one\022s personal affair and it is  a part of his right to privacy which is included in Article 21 of our  Constitution as held by several decisions of this Court.  In R. Rajagopal  vs.   State of Tamilnadu AIR 1995 SC 264 (vide para 28) this Court held that  the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed by  Article 21.  It is a ‘right to be let alone\022.         27.     However, in the present case, the closure of the slaughter houses is  only for 9 days and not for a considerable period of time.  We have,  therefore, to take a balanced view of the matter.

28.     In this connection it may be mentioned that there is a large population  of the Jain community in the States of Rajasthan and Gujarat.  The Jains  have a religious festival called Paryushan during which they do penance.  Out of respect, for their sentiments surely the non-vegetarians can remain  vegetarians for 9 days in a year.       29.     Mr. Soli Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for one the appellants  submitted that even non-vegetarians can get meat from other cities of  Gujarat or from other States during these 9 days\022 period of Paryushan and  they will not be compelled to become vegetarians.  Learned counsel  submitted that it is only the municipal slaughter houses  which are closed for  9 days, but there is no ban on eating meat during those 9 days which can  easily be procured from outside. We do not agree.       30.     We have to take a practical view of the matter.  Most people do not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

have the money to purchase meat from other cities or other States and bring  it to Ahmedabad.  Almost all meat eaters get their meat from the local  butcher shop in the city, usually from a shop which is close to their  residence.  Hence, closure of the slaughter house, in substance, means  compelling the non-vegetarians to become vegetarians for 9 days.        31.     However, we agree with Mr. Sorabjee that the restriction is only a  partial restriction for a limited period, and it is not disproportionate.  Hence  it is not an unreasonable restriction.                32.     While it is true that the fundamental right of the writ petitioners under  Article 19(1)(g) is affected by the impugned resolutions of the municipal  corporation, we have further to examine whether the resolutions are saved  by Article 19(6) which states that reasonable restrictions can be put on the  right to freedom of trade and occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the  Constitution.         33.     In this connection, we may now refer to the well known Constitution  Bench decision of this Court in State of Madras  vs.  V.G. Row 1952 SCR  597, where this Court observed that while determining the reasonable  restriction, the Court should consider not only the factors of the restriction  such as the duration and the extent but also the circumstances and the  manner in which the imposition has been authorized.   The Court further  observed: \023It is important in this context to bear in mind that the  test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be  applied to each individual statute impugned, and no  abstract standard, or general pattern of reasonableness  can be laid down as applicable to all cases.  The nature of  the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying  purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and  urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the  disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions  at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict.  In  evaluating such elusive factors and forming their own  conception of what is reasonable, in all the circumstances  of a given case, it is inevitable that the social philosophy  and the scale of values of the judges participating in the  decision should play an important part, and the limit to  their interference with legislative judgment in such cases  can only be dictated by their sense of responsibility and  self-restraint and the sobering reflection that the  Constitution is meant not only for people of their way of  thinking but for all, and that the majority of the elected  representatives of the people have, in authorizing the  imposition of the restrictions, considered them to be  reasonable\024.

34.     The aforesaid observations have become locus classicus.  In the  present case we have noticed that the closure of the slaughter house is only  for 9 days and not for a considerable period of time.  This decision indicates  that the restriction is reasonable. A period of 9 days is a very short time and  surely the non-vegetarians can become vegetarians during those 9 days out  of respect for the feeling of the Jain community.  Also, the dealers in meat  can do their business for 356 days in a year, and they have to abstain from it  for only 9 days in a year.  Surely this is not an excessive restriction,  particularly since such closure has been observed for many years.

35.     In the above observation in State of Madras  vs.  V.G. Row (supra)  mention has been made therein of the things to be seen in judging whether  the restriction is reasonable or not, and one important consideration is  whether the restriction is disproportionate.  In our opinion, there is no  disproportionate restriction because the restriction is only for a short period  of 9 days.  Moreover, in the above observation in V.G. Row\022s case (supra),

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

it is also mentioned that Courts must act with a sense of responsibility and  self-restraint with the sobering reflection that the Constitution is meant not  only for people of their way of thinking but for all, and the majority of the  elected representatives of the people have in authorizing the imposition of  the restrictions considered them to be reasonable.                36.     Judging from that angle mentioned above in V.G. Row\022s case (supra),  which has been consistently followed thereafter, in our opinion the closure  of slaughter house cannot be said to be an unreasonable restriction on the  writ petitioners\022 right to do their trade and business of slaughtering animals.

37.     In this connection, reference may be made to Om Prakash and  others  vs.  State of U.P. and others 2004 (3) SCC 402, where this Court  held that a municipal bye-law prohibiting sale of meat, fish and egg in  Rishikesh is valid considering the fact that most people in Risikesh come for  religious purposes and members of several communities are strictly  vegetarian, and it is such people who come in large numbers to visit  Haridwar, Muni-Ki-Reti are vegetarians.

38.     It may be mentioned that the impugned resolutions which have been  made under Section 466(1)(D)(b)of the Bombay Provincial Municipal  Corporations Act, 1949 amount to a piece of delegated legislation.  A piece  of delegated legislation is also statutory in character and the only limitation  on it is that it should not violate the provisions of the parent statute or of the  Constitution.  In our opinion, the impugned resolutions of the Corporation  do not violate the parent statute or any constitutional provisions.       39.     We have recently held in Govt of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.  vs.  Smt.  P. Laxmi Devi, JT 2008(2) 8 SC 639 that the Court should exercise judicial  restraint while judging the constitutional validity of statutes.  In our opinion,  the same principle also applies when judging the constitutional validity of  delegated legislation and here also there should be judicial restraint.  There  is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of statutes as well as  delegated legislation, and it is only when there is a clear violation of a  constitutional provision (or of the parent statute, in the case of delegated  legislation) beyond reasonable doubt that the Court should declare it to be  unconstitutional.

40.     In the present case, we do not find any clear violation of any  constitutional provision by the impugned resolutions.  As already stated  above, had the closure of the slaughter houses been ordered for a  considerable period of time, we would have declared it to be  unconstitutional on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) as well as  21 of the Constitution.  However, in the present case, the closure is only for  a few days and has been done out of respect for the sentiments of the Jain  community which has a large population in Gujarat.  Moreover such closure  during Paryushan has been consistently observed in Ahmedabad for a very  long time, at least from 1993 and probably for a longer period. 41.     It must be remembered that India is a multi-cultural pluralistic society  with tremendous diversity.  There are a large number of religions, castes,  languages, ethnic groups, cultures, etc. in our country.  Somebody is tall,  somebody is short, somebody is fair, somebody is brown, somebody is dark  in complexion, someone has Caucasian features, someone has Mongoloid  features, someone has Negroid features, etc.  We may compare our country  with China which is larger in population and size than India. China has 1.3  billion people while our population is 1.1 billion.  Also, China has more than  twice our land area.  However, there is broad homogeneity in China. All  Chinese have Mongoloid features; they have a common written script  (Mandarin Chinese) and 96% of them belong to one ethnic group called the  Han Chinese.

42.     On the other hand, India as stated above, has tremendous diversity and  this is due to large scale migrations and invasion into India over thousands  of years.

43.     People migrate from uncomfortable areas to comfortable areas.   Before the coming of modern industry there were agricultural societies and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

India was a paradise for these because agriculture requires level land, fertile  soil, plenty of water for irrigation etc. which was in abundance in India.   Why would anybody living in India migrate to Afganistan which has a   harsh terrain, rocky and mountainous and covered with snow for several  months in a year when one cannot grow any crop?  Hence, almost all  migrations and invasions came from outside into India (except in recent  times when some people have gone to other countries for job opportunities).   Most of the migrations/invasions came from the North-West, and to a much  lesser extent from the North-East of India.  Thus, people kept pouring into  India, and it is for this reason that there is so much diversity in India.        44.     As the great Urdu poet Firaq Gorakhpuri wrote :                 lj t+ehus fgan ij vdokes vkye ds fQjkd     dkfQys xqt+jrs x, fgUnqLrku Ckurk x;k                         Which means \026                  \023In the land of Hind, the Caravans of the peoples of                  The world kept coming in and India kept getting formed\024                           45.     Since India is a country of great diversity, it is absolutely essential if  we wish to keep our country united to have tolerance and respect for all  communities and sects.  It was due to the wisdom of our founding fathers  that we have a Constitution which is secular in character, and which caters to  the tremendous diversity in our country.   46.     Thus it is the Constitution of India which is keeping us together  despite all our tremendous diversity, because the Constitution gives equal  respect to all communities, sects, lingual and ethnic groups, etc. in the  country.   

47.     The architect of modern India was the great Mughal Emperor Akbar  who gave equal respect to people of all communities and appointed them to  the highest offices on their merits irrespective of their religion, caste, etc.       48.     The Emperor Akbar held discussions with scholars of all religions and  gave respect not only to Muslim scholars, but also to Hindus, Christians,  Parsis, Sikhs, etc.  Those who came to his court were given respect and the  Emperor heard their views, sometimes alone, and sometimes in the  Ibadatkhana (Hall of Worship), where people of all religions assembled and  discussed their views in a tolerant spirit.  The Emperor declared his policy of  Suleh-e-Kul, which means universal tolerance of all religions and  communities.  He abolished Jeziya in 1564 and the pilgrim tax in 1563 on  Hindus and permitted his Hindu wife to continue to practise her own religion  even after their marriage.  This is evident from the Jodha Bai Palace in  Fatehpur Sikri which is built on Hindu architectural pattern.       49.     In 1578, the Parsi theologian Dastur Mahyarji Rana was invited to the  Emperor\022s court and he had detailed discussions with Emperor Akbar and  acquainted him about the Parsi religion.  Similarly, the Jesuit Priests Father  Antonio Monserrate, Father Rodolfo Acquaviva and Father Francisco  Enriques etc. also came to the Emperor\022s court on his request and acquainted  him about the Christian religion.  The Emperor also became acquainted with  Sikhism and came into contact with Guru Amar Das and Guru Ram Das (see  ‘The Mughal Empire\022 by R.C. Majumdar).

50.     Thus, as stated in the Cambridge History of India (Vol.IV \026 The  Mughal Period) Emperor Akbar conceived the idea of becoming the father  of all his subjects, rather than the leader of only the Muslims, and he was far  ahead of his times.  As mentioned by Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru in ‘The  Discovery of India\022, \023Akbar\022s success is astonishing, for he created a sense  of oneness among the diverse elements of India.\024       51.     In 1582, the Emperor invited and received a Jain delegation consisting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

of Hiravijaya Suri, Bhanuchandra Upadhyaya and Vijayasena Suri.  Jainism,  with its doctrine of non-violence, made a profound impression on him and  influenced his personal life.  He curtailed his food and drink and ultimately  abstained from flesh diet altogether for several months in the year.  He  renounced hunting which was his favourite pastime, restricted the practice of  fishing and released prisoners and caged birds.  Slaughter of animals was  prohibited on certain days and ultimately in 1587 for about half the days in  the year.       52.     Akbar\022s contact with Jains began as early as 1568, when Padma  Sunder who belonged to the Nagpuri Tapagaccha was honoured by him.

53.     As mentioned in Dr. Ishwari Prasad\022s ‘The Mughal Empire\022, the Jains  had a great influence on the Emperor.  A disputation was held in Akbar\022s  court between the Jain monks Buddhisagar of Tapgaccha and Suddha Kirti  of Khartargaccha on the subject of Jain religious ceremony called Pansadha  in which the winner was given the title Jagatguru by Akbar.  Having heard  of the virtues and learning of Hir Vijaya Suri in 1582 the Emperor sent an  invitation to him through the Mughal Viceroy at Ahmedabad.  He accepted it  in the interests of his religion.  He was offered money by the Viceroy to  defray the expenses of the journey but he refused.  The delegation consisting  of Hir Vijaya Suri, Bhanu Chandra Upadhyaya and Vijaya Sen Suri started  on their journey and walked on foot to Fatehpur Sikri and were received  with great honour befitting imperial guests.  Hir Vijaya Suri had discussion  with Abul Fazl.  He propounded the doctrine of Karma and an impersonal  God.  When he was introduced to the Emperor he defended true religion and  told him that the foundation of faith should be daya (compassion) and that  God is one though he is differently named by different faiths.         54.     The Emperor received instruction in Dharma from Suri who explained  the Jain doctrines to him.  He discussed the existence of God and the  qualities of a true Guru and recommended non-killing (Ahinsa).  The  Emperor was persuaded to forbid the slaughter of animals for six months in  Gujarat and to abolish the confiscation of the property of deceased persons,  the Sujija Tax (Jeziya) and a Sulka (possibly a tax on pilgrims) and to free  caged birds and prisoners.  He stayed for four years at Akbar\022s court and left  for Gujarat in 1586.  He imparted a knowledge of Jainism to Akbar and  obtained various concessions to his religion.  The Emperor is said to have  taken a vow to refrain from hunting and expressed a desire to leave off meat- eating for ever as it had become repulsive.  The Emperor presented to him  Padma Sundar scriptures which were preserved in his palace.  He offered  them to Suri as a gift and he was pressed by the Emperor to accept them.   The killing of animals was forbidden for certain days.

55.     If the Emperor Akbar could forbid meat eating for six months in a  year in Gujarat, is it unreasonable to abstain from meat for nine days in a  year in Ahmedabad today?   

56.     Emperor Akbar was a propagator of Suleh-i-Kul (universal toleration)  at a time when Europeans were indulging in religious massacres e.g. the St.  Bartholomew Day massacre in 1572 of Protestants, (called Huguenots) in  France by the Catholics, the burning at the stake of Protestants by Queen  Mary of England, the massacre by the Duke of Alva of millions of people  for their resistance to Rome and the burning at the stake of Jews during the  Spanish Inquisition.  We may also mention the subsequent massacre of the  Catholics in Ireland by Cromwell, and the mutual massacre of Catholics and  Protestants in Germany during the thirty year war from 1618 to 1648 in  which the population of Germany was reduced from 18 million to 12  million.  Thus, Emperor Akbar was far ahead of even the Europeans of his  times.  

57.     Emperor Akbar himself abstained from eating meat on Fridays and  Sundays and on some other days, as has been mentioned in the Ain-I-Akbari  by Abul Fazl.           

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

58.     It was because of the wise policy of toleration of the Great Emperor  Akbar that the Mughal empire lasted for so long, and hence the same wise  policy of toleration alone can keep our country together despite so much  diversity.        59.     We may give another historical illustration of tolerance in our  country.  In the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah of Avadh, in a certain year  Holi and Muharrum coincidentally fell on the same day.  Holi is a festival of  joy, whereas Muharrum is an occasion for mourning.  The Hindus of  Lucknow decided that they would not celebrate Holi that year out of respect  for the sentiments for their Muslim brethren. On that day, the Nawab joined  the Muharrum procession and after burial of the Tazia at Karbala he  enquired why Holi is not being celebrated.  He was told that it was not being  celebrated because the Hindus out of respect for the sentiments of their  Muslim brethren had decided not to play Holi that year because it was a day  of mourning for the Muslims. On hearing this, Nawab Wajid Ali Shah  declared that since Hindus have respected the sentiments of their Muslim  brothers, it is also the duty of the Muslims to respect the sentiments of their  Hindu brethren.  Hence, he announced that Holi would be celebrated the  same day and he himself was the first who started playing Holi on that day  and thereafter everyone in Lucknow, including the Muslims, played Holi,  although it was Muharrum day also.  It is this kind of sentiment of tolerance  which alone can keep our country united.

60.     We are making these comments because what we are noticing now-a- days is a growing tendency of intolerance in our country.  

61.     Article 1(1) of the Constitution states \023India i.e Bharat is a Union of  States\024.

62.     It may be mentioned that during the Constituent Assembly debates  some members of the Constituent Assembly were of the view that India  should be described as a Federation.  However, instead of the word  "Federation" the word "Union" was deliberately selected by the Drafting  Committee of the Constituent Assembly to indicate two things, viz., (a) that  the Indian Union is not the result of an agreement by the States, and (b) that  the component States have no freedom to secede from it.  

63.     Moving the Draft Constitution for the consideration of the Constituent  Assembly on November 4, 1948, Dr. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting  Committee explained the significance of the use of the expression "Union"  instead of the expression "Federation":-   

"It is true that South Africa which is a unitary State is  described as a Union.  But Canada which is a Federation  is also called a Union. Thus the description of India as a  Union, though its constitution is federal, does no violence  to usage.  But what is important is that the use of the  word "Union" is deliberate.  I do not know why the word  "Union" was used in the Canadian Constitution.  But I  can tell you why the Drafting Committee has used it.   The Drafting Committee wanted to make  it clear that  though India was to be a federation, the federation was  not the result of an agreement by the States to join in a  federation, and that the federation not being the result of  an agreement, no State has the right to secede from it.   The federation is a Union because it is indestructible.   Though the country and the people may be divided into  different States for convenience of administration, the  country is one integral whole, its people a single people  living under a single imperium derived from a single  source.  The Americans had to wage a civil war to  establish that the States have no right of secession and  that their federation was indestructible.  The Drafting  Committee thought that it was better to make it clear at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

the outset rather than to leave it to speculation or to  dispute".

64.     The Drafting Committee thus clearly attached great importance to the  use of the term "Union" as symbolic of the determination of the Assembly to  maintain the unity of the country.  This was evident from the discussions on  draft article 1 in the Assembly on November 15, 1948.

65.     Thus India is not an association or confederation of States, it is a  Union of States and there is only one nationality that is Indian.  Hence every  Indian has a right to go any where in India, to settle anywhere, and work and  do business of his choice in any part of India, peacefully.         66.     These days unfortunately some people seem to be perpetually on a  short fuse, and are willing to protest often violently, about anything under  the sun on the ground that a book or painting or film etc. has \023hurt the  sentiments\024 of their community.  These are dangerous tendencies and must  be curbed with an iron hand.  We are one nation and must respect each other  and should have tolerance.         67.     As the great Tamil Poet Subramaniya Bharati wrote :                 \023Muppadhu kodi mugamudayal                  Enil maipuram ondrudayal       Ival Seppumozhi padhinetudayal       Enil Sindhanai ondrudayal\024                                 Which means \026                 \023This Bharatmaata has thirty crores of faces!                  But her body is one.                  She speaks eighteen languages!                  But her thought is one\024       68.     The great Tamil poet Kaniyan Pookundranar wrote :                       \023Yadhum oore yaavarum kelir\024                                                          Which means-                       \023All places are my own places                 All people are my own kith and kin\024                  69.     Similarly, the great poet Saint Tiruvalluvar in Chapter 74 verse 735 of  Tirukkural wrote:                  \023Palkuzhuvum paazhseyyum utpagayum                 Vendalaikku kolkurumbum illadhu nnadu\024                               Which means \026                       \023That alone can be called as a prosperous country                 which is free from separatist tendencies                 and people who harm its sovereignty\024.             70.     In the Shanti Parv of Mahabharata Bhishma Pitamah tells  Yudhishthir:                       Hksns x.kk fous\022kqfg fHkUukLrq  Lkqt;k% ijSS% k                 rLEkkr la|kr;sxsu iz;rsju x.kk%  lnk  kk                                                        (Chapter 107/108 Shloka 14)         Which means-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

                     \023Republics have been destroyed only because of internal                       divisions, it  is  only  when  there  are  internal                              divisions  between  the people,         that an  enemy can                       destroy it, hence a republic should always try to                                achieve, unity  and good relations between its people."                  In the same Shanti Parv, Bhishma Pitamah also said :                rs"kkeU;ksU;fHkUukuka  Lo’kfRdeuqfr"Brke kk          fuxzg% Ikf.MrS% dk;Z% f{kIzkeso  g?kkur%    k                          Which means \026               \023The intelligent authorities of a republic should suppress                 those   leaders of factions who try to divide the people\024.                                                                          (Chapter 107/108 Shloka 26)             71.     In the present case we have seen that for a long period slaughter  houses have been closed in Gujarat for a few days out of respect for the  sentiments of the Jain community, which has a sizable population in Gujarat  and Rajasthan.  We see nothing unreasonable in this restriction.  

72.     As already stated above, it is a short restriction for a few days and  surely the non-vegetarians can remain vegetarian for this short period. Also,  the traders in meat of Ahmedabad will not suffer much merely because their  business has been closed down for 9 days in a year.  There is no prohibition  to their business for the remaining 356 days in a year.  In a multi cultural  country like ours with such diversity, one should not be over sensitive and  over touchy about a short restriction when it is being done out of respect for  the sentiments of a particular section of society.  It has been stated above  that the great Emperor Akbar himself used to remain a vegetarian for a few  days every week out of respect for the vegetarian section of the Indian  society and out of respect for his Hindu wife.  We too should have similar  respect for the sentiments for others, even if they are a minority sect.             73.     In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment  is set aside and the impugned resolutions of the Municipal Corporation of  Ahmedabad are held to be valid.  There shall be no order as to costs.

74.     Resultantly, all the connected appeals stand allowed.  There shall be  no order as to costs.